A High Court judge has made interim orders restraining the father of a disabled teenage boy from contacting his son or interfering with his foster home placement where he has lived for several years.
The orders were sought by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) in the context of an application for an inquiry as to whether the boy, due to turn 18 shortly, should be made an adult ward of court.
The boy, who has a moderate intellectual disability and physical disability, was taken into the care of the Agency some years ago and has been in foster care of a couple for several years. He regards them as his family and refers to them as “Mum and Dad”, the court was told.
Counsel for the CFA said the boy needs significant assistance with most aspects of daily living and is not capable of living independently. The CFA had obtained reports from a doctor and psychiatrist expressing views he was of unsound mind and lacked capacity to mange his person and finances.
The boy has access to his mother and maternal grandfather and phone contact with a sibling and his mother supported the wardship application, counsel said. The boy had access to his father in the past which had not proven successful, thecourt heard. He has consistently said he does not want to see his father and had become distressed when walk-by access was granted to his father in 2017 after the latter took District Court proceedings, the court heard.
Efforts had been made to serve the father with the wardship proceedings but those had proven unsuccessful and papers were returned from his home address, the court heard. The Agency did not have an email contact for him and various phone numbers provided to it had proven unsuccessful in terms of establishing contact.
The Agency’s last contact with the father was on April 27th last when the father phoned a social worker and said his son wanted to see him and was entitled to do so. The social worker considered the language used was threatening and it was in those circumstances the interim orders restraining interference with the boy’s foster placement were being sought.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said he was satisfied to make an order directing an independent medical visitor to assess the boy and report as to whether he meets the criteria for wardship.
He appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the boy’s interests and made a further order that the boy continue in the care and custody of the foster placement and restraining the father contacting him and interfering with that placement.
The judge accepted that every effort had been made to put the father on notice of this application but urged the Agency to continue its efforts to notify the father and tell him of the review date as the order involved a restriction on his ability to see his son. On the evidence before the court now, he was happy to make the order, the judge said.
